Sequoia

Wow, just dropped by to check the comments section during my brief monthly free pass, and what do I find but Connor linking news of a hospital expansion to the Boston bombing. Nice one, dude.

Hate spew! Discriination! Unequal playing fields! How long will our children have to chase the soccer ball that keeps rolling off this unequal playing field! Why can't this town have LEVEL PLAYING FIELDS!

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah... uh, I don't think rational thought can accurately connect a hospital expansion to terror and street riots in Jefferson City. Who's got the chip on their shoulder? Who watches too much TV?

The federal government can't "regulate" rights? What does that mean? The government regulates people... specifically, government regulates how people exercise their rights.

Indeed, if people's exercise of their rights didn't create conflict, the government would have nothing to do.

Our rights are inherent in our creation as individual human beings. Our state and federal constitutions protect some of those rights from government action. But the government certainly regulates rights.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't incite violence. Those are two big regulations on free speech. You can't commit human sacrifice, even if your religion calls for it. The government regulates 4th Amendment rights every time it launches a spy drone or conducts a stop-and-frisk. Bob, DUDE: The "due process" clause in the 5th Amendment invites regulation (through due process of law) of life, liberty and property. Isn't that Constitutional approval of "regulation of rights"? And certainly y'all know the word "well-regulated" is RIGHT THERE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

The very act of interpreting exactly how a diverse nation of citizens will exercise each of their individual rights in peace, using Constitutional language that stays the same as society continues to change.... that's the act of regulating rights. That's what government is.

This over-reaction to limited gun regulations (background checks, etc.) is preposterous, as is the armchair jurisprudence. Politicians line up to pose as tough guys, and you tough guys play right along.

If y'all are so concerned about sharing of your private information, get off the internet and cut up your credit cards. The place where you buy your guns, or the method by which you buy them, or the internet site where you chat about them, all probably capture, distribute and sell more of your personal information than the Dept. of Revenue.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing. Senator Schaefer making political hay and getting his name in the paper. He's got you gun conspiracy believers by the nose.

Wait... aren't you outraged that the Dept. of Revenue knows that you own an SUV?!?!?!?

I wish the reporter could have gotten another source for this story. Having covered the city for a while, surely she knows someone who would go on the record asking some critical questions about this report.

$400k out of $520k on personnel? As in, salaries?

75 percent of a million-dollar budget on salaries for 11 people? People for the chamber are earning an average of $70k a year (some way more than others, I'm sure). What are these people doing all day? Why does it cost so much of our money?

And they spent $36k on "economic development"? $2k for "community development?" What does that mean? The "facilitation process"? What?

I see big salaries paid by our taxes with no results to show, except for a series of failed ballot initiatives that succeeded only in confirming people's suspicions that the role of the Chamber is to sell a deal that benefits a small group of people. All I see the Chamber do is give out awards to each other for being in the Chamber.

The city should do itself a favor; take the money it spends on the chamber, and hire a real urban development consultant to do a long-term comprehensive city plan. Meet with the residents, identify growth areas, use zoning and incentives to channel growth and protect rural areas. Build with a plan, not one isolated "deal" at a time. Let the back-patters do the grip-and-grin on their own dime.

You old schoolers better get with the times. There are plenty of conservative and Biblical grounds on which to support marriage for all:

Marriage and family are good for society (that's why the government gives benefits for it). They make people more economically and emotionally stable, which is a good thing for everyone.

Children do better in economically and emotionally stable families with two parents.

Freedom of religion: a church that wishes to marry its same-sex congregants should have the right to do so. The trope that expressions of gay love are sinful is not universally accepted as a theological principle. Be careful... it might by YOU who is making the grave sin by standing against love. Remember that love is Jesus' only commandment... be careful when you defy the plain words of Jesus. He was in favor of love, against judging. Remember that!

Equal protection: A traditional constitutional principle is that laws should apply to everyone equally.

When conservatives get back to their basic principles and return to the virtues expressed in the Bible, they will be more in touch with young people today. You can support gay marriage AND conservative principles AND biblical commands.

The fact is that the conservative "movement" has manufactured political opposition to gay marriage as a way to convince people (like some of the posters here) to vote against their economic interest by voting for social issues that, funny enough, never seemed to be resolved in favor of social conservatives, no matter how many of them you vote in. Quit getting suckered.

The government has some interest in making sure people don't marry minor children or members of their own family, so some state laws governing marriage are valid and rational. But there is no evidence whatsoever that gay couples are any more or less functional than straight couples. There is no rational reason to support laws against gay marriage... they are theological, not rational. We don't do theocracy in this country.

Freedom and love, y'all. That's the future. Get with it or get left behind. Some of you will be stuck on the wrong side of history, and you'll be anxious and resentful about that, and the conservative movement will keep trying to nurse your resentment to fool you into voting against your own economic interest.

Fortunately for conservatives like me (who aren't afraid of modernity and change and who want to move conservatism forward), the tactic of getting people to vote for corporate-friendly policies by scaring and suckering them with social issues is showing ever-diminishing returns.

Sweep out the money grubbers and theocratic fundamentalists, and return conservatism toward opportunity, common sense and moral vision. That's the way forward.

If the NRA would quit watering down these laws, maybe we wouldn't need new ones.

Of course, Rbreb13, I'm sure I don't have to explain it to you (but maybe I do): Knives, baseball bats and frying pans are not DESIGNED for mass killing. These military-style weapons are. Come on. You've got better arguments than that, don't you?

I'd be willing to bet neither connor nor F35 have ever used a military style weapon to kill an animal. Y'all are posers. Really, if you need that many follow-up shots to make a kill, you shouldn't be out there with a gun until you've had some target practice.

Weapons designed for mass killing need to be carefully regulated. What's wrong with that?

The argument that "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is a silly argument. Why make any laws? Lawbreakers will just break them!

I like how you're all concerned about the government taking guns away, but then you casually advocate that the government should remove children from their parents if they seem "bonkers." Don't take my guns... take my kids! I guess government over-reach is fine if it isn't happening to you.

All I'm saying is that products DESIGNED FOR MASS KILLING should not be manufactured and sold, or at least should be regulated at least as well as cigarettes or automobiles. Not sure what's so radical about that.

If two thugs want to shoot at each other, I really don't care about that. Some problems can't be solved. But I do support laws that would make it harder for anyone with a criminal conviction to obtain a gun.

I DO NOT WANT YOUR GUNS. NO ONE WANTS TO GET YOUR OL' WHATEVER. Can you please read what I'm writing??

I want manufacturers to stop making weapons designed for mass killings and selling them to civilians with little or no oversight.

Give every gun a license number, just like a car, so we know who bought it.

What is radical is the idea that gun manufacturers can make these products, sell them, keep them wholly unregulated, buy off politicians and shut down debate about them. We regulate cars much more heavily than we regulate items specifically designed for mass killing. That's the NRA at work, and that's plain crazy.